- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 25506 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. M. GANPATHRAJ S/O LATE MANMAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.83/1, 3RD CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V. GUNASEELAN S/O K VISHWASAM SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1(A). ANTHONY GUNASEELAN W/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN 1(B). EBINEZER JAYASHEELAN S/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGE NOT KNOWN 1(C). ANGEL PRICILLA D/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 ALL RESIDING AT NO.178, GOVINDAPPA LANE, 10TH CROSS KODIHALLI, HAL II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 008. 1(D). K. RUCKMANI W/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN 1(E). G. SHEEBA RUTH D/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN BOTH RESIDING AT NO.26, HAL OLD TOWNSHIP BEHIND SBI BANK, NEAR HAL BUS STOP BENGALURU - 560 017. 2. SRI. D KRISHNAKANTH S/O SRI DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.69, RATNA VILAS ROAD, K R ROAD CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. L. MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(C); R1(D) AND R1(E) SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 ON I.A.NO.3 FILED U/S 151, CPC PASSED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 IN O.S.NO.25985/2017 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-20) MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU VIDE ANENXURE-C AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT IN THE SUIT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.25985/2017 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 13.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.25985/2017 by the Court of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 3. The suit in O.S.No.25985/2017 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court by respondent No.1 herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 for sale dated 11.06.2015, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff and also to declare that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 22.11.2016 as void ab-initio. 4. In the said suit, defendant No.1 has been placed ex parte. Defendant No.2, who was served had not filed his written statement and therefore, the trial Court on 13.07.2018 has taken written statement as not filed on behalf of defendant No.2 and had adjourned the case for plaintiff's evidence by 11.09.2018. On 11.09.2018, the matter was adjourned at the request of plaintiff’s counsel to 13.11.2018. On 13.11.2018, application in I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 with a prayer to recall the order dated 13.07.2018 and to permit him to file written statement. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the same day without even calling for any objection from the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has got a good defence and in the suit prayer is made even to cancel the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property. If an opportunity to file his written statement is not granted to defendant No.2, he will be put to hardship. Defendant No.1, who is the vendor of the defendant No.2 and who allegedly has executed sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff is placed ex parte before the trial Court. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit is filed not only seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 11.06.2015, allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, but a further prayer is also sought to declare the sale deed dated 22.11.2016 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property as void ab initio. Defendant No.1 who is served - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 before the trial Court has not entered appearance and therefore, he has been placed ex parte before the trial Court. 7. On 13.07.2018, for the reason that no written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.2, the trial Court has taken note and has observed that written statement not filed on behalf of defendant No.2 and thereafter, case was adjourned for plaintiff's evidence by 11.09.2018. On 11.09.2018, at the request of plaintiff's counsel, case was adjourned to 13.11.2018 and on the said date also, plaintiff's counsel had prayed for time. On the said date, I.A.No.3 was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 to recall the order dated 13.07.2018 and permit defendant No.2 to file his written statement. 8. The learned trial judge without even calling for any objection from the plaintiff, by a cryptic order has rejected the prayer made in I.A.No.3. It is trite that the time limit provided for a defendant to file written - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 statement in a suit is directory and not mandatory. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that in the event the defendant No.2 who is a contesting party is not granted opportunity to file his written statement and defend the suit claim, he will be put to irreparable hardship and injury and therefore, in my considered opinion the trial Court was not justified in passing the order impugned. The inconvenience caused to the plaintiff can be compensated monetarily. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed subject to cost of ₹20,000/-. ii. The impugned order dated 13.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.25985/2017 by the Court of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is set-aside and consequently, the prayer made in the application I.A.No.3 is granted. iii. Petitioner is permitted to file his written statement before the trial Court on or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44890 WP No. 25506 of 2019 before 12.12.2025, which is said to be the next date of hearing before the trial Court. iv. Cost shall be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26